Women are not suffering. I completely agree with the posted question. However, the response about suffering in a new way is irritating. I hate when people blame the media and society on personal values. For example, while the media may feed us an image, we choose to value it or not. Many people do not let the media tell them who the they are. If one knows themselves, the status quo is not such a threat. If one does fight to be perfect in the eyes of society, rather than being themselves, they are not "suffering;" instead, they are playing a game. This problem does not exist only in women. Certain issues are more prominant in women. However, it is ignorant to say that eating disorders, such as anorexia, prove that women in america are suffering. Anorexia is a psychological disorder, so is bi-polar disorder, so is attention deficit disorder. Just because anorexia is more common among women does not mean American women are suffering. By this logic, we should say that Americans are suffering because society has given us psychological disorders. There have always been psychological disorders. Is the media guilty of promoting unhealthy images?? Sure. Are women unintelligent enough to legitimately be considered a victim in this case though? If children can play violent video games and not become killers, can't adult women watch celebrities without completely losing their own self image? To present a strong image, and declare equality, women should find themselves and not blame the media for obstructing their ability to possess self knoweledge. This is a case where playing the role of victim shows weakness. This is a major issue with modern feminism.
2007-03-21 20:19:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by sestantonse58 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Much of the suffering of women (and men) in the US is self-inflicted.
We (sometimes) suffer because of the choices we make. Other times, we are victims of circumstance.
For example, many very young (sometimes minor) women chose to have children prior to marriage -- with men who are irresponsible and of poor character.
Sometimes neither one can care for themselves, let alone a child. Thus, the mother (and children) may "suffer", struggling along near or in poverty.
Thousands of women do indeed suffer under such circumstances BECAUSE of this choice.
Certainly, the "father" carries the responsibility of caring for the child(ren), at the very least. But, he's an irresponsible bum.
The biological fact is that women give birth and must make wise choices as to whom they chose as the father of their children. They can chose a good man that is first a husband or they can chose a bum that refuses to be a father or husband.
That is why teaching children moral values, such as "get married to a morally and spiritually upright person BEFORE having children" is such sound advice.
Also, "become a mature adult able to care for yourself prior to even getting married."
When a young woman is given and follows simple principles such as the above, much suffering is avoided.
2007-03-21 17:32:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I wouldn't refer to it as suffering, but many employers still devalue women because they assume we want to bugger off and pop out some kiddies.
If they do have kids and no hubby or partner about it is extremely difficult to balance the work and domestic life, and a lot of them will still live in relative poverty, i.e. unable to buy basic essentials.
Looking at the bigger picture, I think the children are the one's who will suffer more, being brought up in poor condtions with a single parent struggling to give them the attention they need as well as the income required to give them a half decent quality of life.
2007-03-21 14:05:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Obviously no one in america is suffering as much as people in undeveloped countries. Women are just about as equal as we can get. Women ARE suffering, though, on a different level then stravation and being beaten. Women in America are under incredible pressure to meet a photoshopped standard of beauty, to be strong, independent and intelliegent without upsetting the men in our lives (I know so many men who wouldn't date a woman who was more successful or more intelligent then them. It isn't the rule, but many men do think like that. )
In todays day and age, women are expected to be perfectly put together every single day (stubble is only sexy on a man), hold a job, and still raise a family and keep the house clean. Women are doing what has always been 'their' job, but doing 'mens' jobs too. Its a hard spot to be in. We aren't being beaten or starved (unless we do it to ourselves), but live certianly isn't as easy as it could be.
2007-03-21 11:51:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by paintmeblue719 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
mid to high income women in america are pretty much equal, although they have an impossible standard of beauty to live up to, it is nothing compared to the inequalities of other countries. but as Geoffrey said, the low to no income women ARE suffering in America, they don't have rights equal to the men in the same socio-economic strata. for example, in the city nearest me there are a lot of homeless people, a lot of homeless women. in recent years, attacks on the homeless have been on the rise, esp attacks on women, in which they are vicioiusly beaten & raped, and sometimes left for dead. homeless women are terrified for night to come.
i witnessed myself a drunk man harassing a homeless woman, trying to force her into his vehicle. my husband & i scared him off & called the police, the woman said that she had reported the same guy following her & watching her from his vehicle for over a week, and that she had to find another place to stay at night, but had to return to her former spot (at a church) that night so hea had found her. when the police came, they said that this type of thing happens all the time now, and she was lucky that night that she did not get injured or killed.
2007-03-21 12:05:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ember Halo 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
There are different socio-economic classes in America. Those women belonging to the lowest socio-economic classes still face difficulties with managing children and work.
Their situation is more difficult and different from men in the same social strata.
But this is less a question of rights than a question of economics and women's role in the economic system.
2007-03-21 11:47:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
There is one phenomenon that is often cited, but which is overrated: the perpetuation of activists' jobs. This is a bit too cynical.
___Feminist method has a history of emphasis on validating feelings as indications of reality and considering logic oppressive. Feminist research is pretty awful, and post-modernist critical methods don't help much either. All of these factors, and more, contribute to a large part of feminism's turning into a collective version of grudge-nurturing, of feeding into distrust and resentment, and much as when individuals dodo the same thing, feminists have been going a little bit insane, and losing sight of reality.
___The 67 or 79 cents per male dollar myth is an example. One of the items that feminists often omit from their considerations is that about 98% of the most hazardous jobs are filled by men, and about the same percentage of on-the-job deaths occur to men. Feminists apparently don't think that this ought to be a criterion for higher pay for these jobs.
___Women live about 6 years longer than men. If this were the other way round, there'd be hell to pay, but instead, yawwwn. Breast cancer and prostate cancer kill about equal numbers of women and men respectively, but the funding for breast cancer is about 10 times as high as for prostate.
___The feminism of 10-20 years ago is now integrated into conventional wisdom (i.e. the consensus of academics and the idea-people of the culture), and feminists control the gender discourse. There are few voices out there that keep them honest. The religious right doesn't count, because they dont' do their intellectual homework, but moderates seem to just go along with feminism, and only recently have women began distancing themselves from feminism in any great numbers. But feminism is an integral part of the secular religion, and too much a sacred cow to draw any serious debate in academia. Larry Summers suggests (not states) that sex-differences might (not does) account for some (not all or any specified degree) of the relatively fewer women in the sciences, and he gets run out of his presidency at Harvard. This is why feminists are often called feminazis. Next they'll be burning books.
___Another problem is a sort of intellectual hypocrisy. Feminism developed an interesting critique of the "phallocentric" thinking of the "dead white men" that constructed Western civilization in Antiquity. There was some merit in this critique, but I have yet to hear one feminist suggest that it be applied in reverse, even as a validity check, to measure today's uterocentrism. And feminism adopts the fashionable skepticisms of so-called "post"-modernism when it serves its pruposes of attacking traditions, but doesn't apply them to its own views. This sort of intellectual one-sidedness leads to increasing delusionality, and there's a sort of collective mental illness among feminists today.
___Further, as feminism's expectations have become ever-more-unreasonable, the likelihood of their being met becomes more remote, and the result is a burning frustration that compounds the solipsism already mentioned. ("Solipsism" refers loosely to believing what one wants to believe, or depicting the world to oneself in one's own terms, without attending to whether reality corresponds.)
___But feminism's days may be numbered. It is a hopeful sign that even women are disgusted with what's been done allegedly in their name. And with all the other signs that we're nearing the end of the modern era, there's a high likelihood that any new era would have to supercede feminism like humanism superceded theocracy following the Renaissance. It won't be eliminated, and this is good, but it should be pruned of its more idiotic excesses.
2007-03-21 17:02:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by G-zilla 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
"We have equal rights & everything?"
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha
You obviously have yet to try and make your way in the working world.
Why do women get paid substantially less than men for the exact same job? Why are women expected to make the coffee but men aren't?
I mean, sure, in the US it is better for women than other places, but why hasn't a woman been elected President? Women have had the vote since 1930. Why is it the look and dress of women politicians always mentioned in the paper, but not the men's look & style? Why are the careers of most Hollywood actresses over after 40, but men keep making movies until they are in their 60s & 70s?
Wake up.
2007-03-21 12:17:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by aspicco 7
·
5⤊
5⤋
1 in 4 have been raped or sexually assaulted, 1 in every 250 is diagnosed with anorexia, and they are constantly surrounded by a culture that only values them as sex objects or baby factories, but insults them and blames them for being a second class citizens because of it.
2007-03-21 17:20:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by bluestareyed 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Clearly they need to look up the definition of the word suffer!
2007-03-21 12:15:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by Becky 5
·
2⤊
3⤋